Safeguarding Freedom of Expression and Religion: Balancing Legal Mandates and Foundational Values — “How the First Amendment Can Save Affirmative Action”
In their thought-provoking article, “How the First Amendment can save Affirmative Action,” Kent Greenfield and Eduardo Peñalver explore the implications of recent Supreme Court rulings on a range of claimants seeking to protect their freedom of expression and exercise of religion. They shed light on the broader context in which institutions, including the Boy Scouts, Hobby Lobby, and the Sisters of the Poor, have invoked these protections to sidestep legal mandates such as the Affordable Care Act and antidiscrimination laws. Additionally, the authors highlight the historical significance of Bates College and Oberlin College, founded by abolitionists, as they emphasize the importance of upholding foundational values in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Protecting Freedom of Expression and Religious Exercise
Greenfield and Peñalver underscore the Supreme Court’s recognition of the rights to freedom of expression and religious exercise, as exemplified by the cases involving the Boy Scouts, Hobby Lobby, and the Sisters of the Poor. These rulings have granted exemptions to these entities, enabling them to bypass various legal mandates that would otherwise impede their ability to act in accordance with their deeply held beliefs. By safeguarding these fundamental freedoms, the Court has established a precedent that has allowed these organizations to protect their core values.
Navigating Legal Mandates
The authors highlight the diverse array of legal mandates that claimants have sought exemptions from, ranging from the Affordable Care Act to antidiscrimination laws. This trend reflects an ongoing tension between governmental regulations and the preservation of individual and institutional rights. While some critics argue that these exemptions undermine the principles of equality and inclusivity, Greenfield and Peñalver assert that the Supreme Court has displayed a consistent inclination to uphold the rights of religious claimants in recent years.
Foundational Values and Mission-Driven Institutions
Greenfield and Peñalver draw attention to the historical significance of institutions such as Bates College and Oberlin College, both founded by abolitionists. These colleges were established with a mission to combat racial injustice and promote equal education opportunities. The authors argue that compelling these mission-driven institutions to adopt a colorblind approach in admissions would undermine their foundational principles. They contend that just as religious business owners are granted protection for their freedom of expression, universities with mission-driven values should be allowed to shape their admissions policies to reflect their core beliefs.
Balancing Foundational Principles and Legal Obligations
In navigating the legal landscape, it is crucial to strike a balance between respecting foundational values and fulfilling legal obligations. While exemptions granted to various claimants have predominantly involved conservative Christian perspectives, Greenfield and Peñalver emphasize that the expression of progressive religious beliefs should be equally entitled to protection. By recognizing the importance of honoring institutional missions and upholding religious freedom, DEI practitioners can work towards a more nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between legal mandates and foundational values.
Conclusion
Greenfield and Peñalver’s article sheds light on the diverse range of claimants who have sought exemptions from legal mandates to protect their freedom of expression and exercise of religion. By highlighting the historical significance of institutions such as Bates College and Oberlin College, the authors underscore the importance of preserving foundational values while navigating the evolving legal landscape. Their perspective encourages DEI practitioners to consider the delicate balance between legal obligations and the protection of religious and expressive freedoms. Ultimately, by engaging in nuanced conversations, society can strive for a more inclusive and just future.
Effenus Henderson
Footnote:
“How the First Amendment can save Affirmative Action” by Kent Greenfield and Eduardo Peñalver, published in The Hill on July 19, 2023. The article offers insightful analysis and commentary on recent Supreme Court rulings and their potential implications for affirmative action and freedom of expression in the context of religious institutions. Kent Greenfield is a professor of constitutional law at Boston College, while Eduardo Peñalver serves as the president and professor of Law at Seattle University. The views expressed in this opinion essay are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective institutions.
